Bill Gilmour

[Canada Post, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has been promoting how far the corporation can send a letter for 45 cents with full page colour newspaper ads and nationwide household flyers.

Canada Post is a crown corporation funded by taxpayers with a monopoly over first class mail. I question why taxpayers should be funding advertisements when, because of the postal monopoly, no other service is available.

Can the minister of public works explain why Canada Post is advertising its mail service when there is no other choice available to Canadians?

[The Senate, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, spending in the other place appears to be out of control. To illustrate, the Senate spent more than $206,000 on a committee on euthanasia to produce a report that has been shelved. In addition, its Pearson airport committee ran up a bill of over $210,000.

The Senate has an annual budget of over $40 million. Now, with no explanation, it wants another $4 million tax dollars to top up its budget.

My motion, passed by the Standing Committee on Government Operations, will request the Senate's board of internal economy to appear before the committee to account for its expenses.

As with all public institutions, the Senate must and will be held accountable to taxpayers.

[Food And Drugs Act, May 9th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-281, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotics Control Act (trafficking in a controlled or a restricted drug or narcotic within five hundred metres of an elementary school of high school).

Mr. Speaker, the impact of drug use on youth is a significant problem of ongoing concern to Canadians that must be addressed. Protection of our youth is a primary concern. By increasing penalties on pushers who deal drugs near schools we will deter criminals from trafficking drugs in and around those schools.

This bill amends the Food and Drug Act and the Narcotic Control Act to impose minimum prison sentences of one year for the first offence and two years for a further offence in cases where a person is convicted of trafficking a controlled or restricted drug or a narcotic within 500 metres of an elementary school or a high school.

Drug related crime was estimated to be the source of 85 per cent of all criminal activity in Canada in 1992. This bill will address those concerns. I hope the House will support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the law may be on the books all right, but my understanding is that the police do not enforce it. That is a major problem.

Speaking of the gun bill, we are going back to registration and the government's folly that people who are going to register their guns will not commit crimes. A criminal does not take a long gun to rob a jewellery store. Criminals use illegal weapons.

That was the problem with the gun bill right from the beginning. There was never a gun lobby in Canada. There is now, and the Liberals are going to pay for it in the next election.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, the member for Fraser Valley East checked victims rights' bills across Canada. The problem is that they are all over the board.

That is why a national standard is necessary. The standard should apply right across the country. Otherwise, people will move from province to province to get into jurisdictions where they may not have to pay or may have a lesser penalty.

We need a national standard. It is not in place at the moment. It is definitely required.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this Reform motion concerning victims rights put forward by the member for Fraser Valley West.

The point of the motion is very basic. We are asking the Liberal government to commit to draw up a victims bill of rights. The motion asks the government to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to draft a victims bill of rights. In areas of provincial jurisdiction the Minister of Justice should consult with the provinces to arrive at a national standard. It is long past time that victims rights be recognized.

As a Reform member of Parliament I am proud to say that the Reform Party is the only party fighting for victims rights in the House. At the same time I am pleased that the Minister of Justice has agreed to support the motion. However, it is not enough to support the motion in principle. Policies must be followed up with actions. The government has been notorious for its promises, but its ability to follow through on the promises has left a lot to be desired. The GST comes to mind.

This is the third debate on victims rights in the House since the last election and Canadians are still waiting for a bill to come forward. We have heard a lot of rhetoric, but victims need far more than rhetoric. Principles carry little weight unless they are put into action. We need a victims bill of rights and I hope that the government will not keep victims waiting for much longer.

Canadians want a system that is fair, just and compassionate. Canadians expect this from a justice system that currently recognizes the rights of the criminal but refuses to entrench the rights of the victim in legislation.

Our justice system is meant to serve all in society. At present it serves just the criminals. There are three parts to a justice system: the law, the criminals and the victims. Somewhere along the line the victims have been left out of the equation. Victims have been neglected by the system to the point where they are the last ones to be consulted or considered and now they are going to be the last to be recognized legally.

The focus of our justice system has been primarily on the criminal. The victim has been shoved to the side and it is time that we realigned our priorities so that victims rights are first and foremost. The victim simply must come first.

In my constituency in Courtenay, B.C., on October 24, 1992 six year old Dawn Shaw was raped and then stomped to death by her babysitter, 16 year old Jason Gamache. Unknown to Dawn's parents, Jason Gamache had two previous convictions of sexual molestation. He had been convicted of two sexual assaults on four year old children, one a girl, the other a boy.

In 1991 a year before the murder, Jason was convicted in Nanaimo. He moved to Courtenay with his mother to attend court ordered sex offender therapy through the John Howard Society. Jason Gamache's probation order clearly stated that he was to have no contact with children under the age of 12. Yet the only people who knew about his background were his mother, his probation officer and the John Howard Society. The RCMP were not notified when Jason moved to Courtenay. They were unaware of his record. Why? Because the criminal's rights were put ahead of those of everyone else.

Jason Gamache was restricted from children under the age of 12, yet he was living right next door to an elementary school. On the same night that he murdered Dawn Shaw, he babysat Dawn Shaw's brother and sister because Dawn Shaw's parents did not know he was a convicted sex offender.

Jason Gamache received the maximum penalty of life with no parole for 10 years. In 1999 when Jason Gamache is 23 he will be eligible for unescorted release from day prison and will be free to roam the streets. The greatest tragedy is that this and many other crimes could have been prevented. Yet our system puts the rights of the criminals, like Jason Gamache, ahead of the rights of society and the rights of Dawn Shaw. Criminals like Jason Gamache have all kinds of rights.

What rights do the victims have? Surely six-year-old Dawn Shaw and her parents had the right to know their babysitter was a dangerous sexual offender. Convicted murderers demand their rights be respected, but rights of victims go unheard.

What about the rights of those who suffer for a lifetime? What rights do the parents of murdered children have? The rights of families with small children like Dawn Shaw who are left vulnerable and oblivious to the dangers of their environment are secondary to the rights of her killer. We cannot put the rights of criminals ahead of our children.

Canadians have the right to know the dangers that exist when there are violent offenders roaming the streets or living next door. Parents have the right to know when there is a child molester in their backyard.

There is a need for a victims' bill of rights. There are a number of rights victims should have yet they do not. Either they are not on the books or there is no mechanism to enforce them. Too often victims are not informed when there is an investigation and this should not be happening in our justice system.

Victims should be fully informed about the progress and outcome of the investigation and the charges to be laid against the offender. If charges are not laid, the victims should be informed why not. The victim must have the right to be informed of the offender's status throughout the process, including, but not restricted to, notification of any arrests, upcoming court dates, sentencing dates, plans to release the offender from custody, including notification of what community the parolee is being released into, conditions of release and parole dates. Victims should also be aware of the criminal's whereabouts at all times.

Victims' rights should also be extended to protect victims of domestic violence. If a victim files a complaint of domestic violence the police must have the authority to follow through tothe end.

The rights of the victim and compensation for the victim's losses should also be a priority consideration. The government must hold the criminal accountable for the crime. Restitution orders should be mandatory, not at the discretion of the courts. It is not enough to give victims their rights. Victims need to know what their rights are. Victims must be informed of their rights at every stage and all information should be made available on request.

Some provinces have taken the initiative to put forward legislation that protects the rights of victims of crime. In British Columbia the victim of crime act gives victims legal rights to information and rights to compensation. However, it only applies to those serving terms of less than two years who fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Ontario victims' right bill allows victims to be provided with information, yet the problem remains. Many of these measures apply only to provincial institutions and will not help victims of crimes under federal jurisdiction.

Provincial legislation is a move in the right direction but it is only a beginning. Provincial laws to protect victims will only apply to provincial violations.

Under the Constitution Act of 1867, Parliament has jurisdiction over the management of penitentiaries, so anything related to prisoners or parole are federal responsibilities. Yet victims have fallen through the cracks because neither the federal government nor the provincial governments have exclusive jurisdiction. Victims fall into both federal and provincial jurisdiction and it is the responsibility of both to work together to establish a national standard for victims' rights.

Why is it that we have a national standard for the environment, a national standard for health, a national standard for parks and a national standard for broadcasting? Is it asking too much to establish national standards for victims' rights? I think not.

It is time for the government to set things straight. It is time for us to show compassion and respect for the victim, that is at the very least equal to that which we give the criminal.

In conclusion, we are asking that the government look into a victims' bill of rights. It is not a huge commitment but it is a small but significant step in the right direction. I hope government members will support this motion, not only with their vote but also with their actions.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member clearly illustrates what I have just been saying. Instead of commenting on the problems or solutions in British Columbia, he tells us what is going on in Ontario. That has been the problem for the last 30 years. We have been hearing about central Canada to the exclusion of British Columbia.

The member also misses the point that Canadians clearly want to see the best uses made of their tax dollars which in many cases are wasted by government. The government is in areas where it should not be and it should get out. That is where the government should cut. It should not cut transfer payments to the provinces in health, welfare and education. The government wants to cut $4.5 billion which is obscene.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the budget on behalf of my constituents in Comox-Alberni. Canadians have listened for years to promises to bring spending under control and they are fed up with governments who are more concerned with re-elections than with the fiscal health and economic well-being of the country.

The last federal budget surplus was in 1970 when the government took in $139 million more than it spent. That was 1970. Since then, former Prime Minister Trudeau increased Canada's debt and it has been spiralling out of control ever since. It is not surprising that our present Prime Minister was finance minister during that period.

The deficit for this fiscal year was down to $33 billion and the Liberals have been doing a smart job in dropping the deficit down, but it has not been going down fast enough. That is only part of the problem. With a national debt of $580 billion and growing every second, Canada is in serious financial trouble. There is little in this budget to deal with this problem.

By not aggressively attacking the debt, the government is giving billions of dollars to the banks instead of spending it on Canadians in need. It is true that the Liberals have made modest cuts in programs, however, by not aggressively attacking the debt, any savings in spending are simply eaten up by payment on the debt.

Canadians are now paying 35 cents of every dollar simply to service the debt. Twenty years ago this figure was 11 cents. It has shot up by a factor of three times. Rather than serving Canadians, this government chooses to send that money off to the big banks.

In addition, this budget not only fails to make the necessary changes required to balance the budget, it makes its cuts by offloading the debt on to the backs of the provinces. For example, 73 per cent of Ottawa's spending cuts in the next year are in federal transfer payments for health, education and social programs.

Last year transfers were cut by $2.5 billion for the next fiscal year and by $4.5 billion for the 1997 fiscal year. This budget cuts transfer payments by another $1.4 billion over and above the $6.8 billion announced last year.

On April 1, provinces will be dealing with $8 billion in reduced transfer payments. By 1998 total transfers to provinces will be reduced by 24 per cent from 1994 levels, a 24 per cent drop in four years.

In terms of attacking the deficit, most provinces are well ahead of Ottawa in deficit reduction. Rather than following the lead of the provinces, this government is taking advantage of their political resolve and is down loading the federal debt on to the provinces.

Without a doubt this government's cuts to federal transfer payments is a feeble attempt to simply make the provinces, which already have balanced budgets, pay the federal debt. At the same time, and this is what infuriates Canadians, this government continues to make very little effort to cut back on government waste.

For example, despite the fact that civil service jobs are being cut, the budget for executive training has been increased by $6 million.

Statistics Canada's budget increased by 47 per cent and Treasury Board had a 12 per cent increase. The list goes on.

While the provinces are being hit hard with transfer payment cuts, this government is still on a spending spree. Provinces such as British Columbia have had it up to here, especially when they are being unfairly targeted by this and previous governments.

British Columbians are forced to cough up more than their fair share of funding and in return what do they get? Less and less. To illustrate, the level of funding under the Canada assistance plan to British Columbia, not to mention Alberta and Ontario, has been frozen since 1990. The Liberals promised to lift this cap, but like many of their promises, they have broken this one as well.

British Columbia, like Alberta and Ontario, continues to be a cash cow for the rest of Canada. In return British Columbians are being deliberately overlooked by this government which is more interested in serving the needs of central Canadians than the so-called rest of Canada.

British Columbia has received less than its fair share of transfer payments for years. For example, B.C. receives 30 cents on the dollar for its social assistance funding from Ottawa, while most other provinces receive 50 cents on the dollar toward their social assistance programs. Does that sound fair? Well, it is not.

There is another glaring inequity. This coming fiscal year Quebec will receive $11 billion in transfer payments. Ontario will receive $10 billion in transfer payments. What does B.C. receive? Three billion dollars in transfer payments. That is unequal and it is obscene.

Federal cuts to social program funding since 1990 have already cost B.C. taxpayers $1.7 billion. Over the next two years B.C. loses an additional $1.2 billion in federal funds for health, social services and post-secondary education. With all the cuts in transfer payments, British Columbians are fed up watching their taxpayers' dollars go to Ottawa with very little coming back the other way.

The level of cash transfers to the provinces is rapidly approaching the point at which Ottawa will lose any influence in setting health care and welfare standards. If this situation continues, why should B.C. be forced to follow Ottawa's standards for welfare when it is simply not coming through with the transfers? The answer is very simple. Ottawa will cease to be a player.

Over the past 30 years, federal spending in B.C. has been significantly lower than any other province or region in Canada. For example, B.C. receives a measly 5 per cent of major crown projects valued at over $100 million despite being the third most populated province in Canada. This is discrimination of major proportions.

The government has not only failed to represent B.C.'s interests in Canada, but it has also failed to represent B.C.'s interests on the international front. For example, the United States is challenging Canada's sovereignty over the inside passage between Vancouver Island and the mainland and is demanding the return of $300,000 in fees collected from U.S. fishermen in 1994.

Last November the American Congress passed a bill declaring the right of free passage to U.S. vessels through B.C.'s inside passage. Clearly this American bill undermines B.C.'s and Canada's sovereignty over its internal waters guaranteed under the Oregon Treaty of 1846. B.C.'s sovereignty over its own territory must be protected, yet the foreign affairs minister views this situation, and I quote his words, "as an annoyance". It is no wonder that British Columbians are worried about their federal representation regarding this issue and other issues such as the ongoing dispute regarding softwood lumber and the treaty regarding salmon.

I am forced to ask the question: Who in this government is looking out for B.C.? The answer: There is not one member of Parliament in the entire Liberal caucus, let alone in cabinet, who is willing to stand up for British Columbia. It is long overdue for this government to recognize the west and its vital contribution to Canada.

British Columbia expects more from the federal government. B.C. expects federal representation and recognition that B.C. makes a major contribution to the country. It is long past time for the Liberals to recognize that B.C. is more than a cash cow for Canada.

British Columbians are not prepared to sit in the back seat any longer. British Columbians are asking themselves what value they are getting for their dollar. When the net costs seem to far outweigh any benefits, it begs the question: Why should B.C. remain in the game?

In conclusion, British Columbians will simply not tolerate these injustices any longer. They are demanding equal treatment and it is becoming very apparent that only a change in government will bring that about. Come the next election, British Columbians will vote for change. They will turf out the Liberals in B.C. who are not representing their interests and will send a complete slate of 32 Reformers to clean up the mess created by the old line parties.

[Access To Information Act, March 28th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (crown corporations).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would make all crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act. At present, crown corporations such as Canada Post are exempt from the Access to Information Act even though they are subsidized through Canadian tax dollars.

Canadians are paying for these services and have a right to know that they are getting good value for their money. Last October the auditor general published a scathing report on the operation of crown corporations.

This bill will open corporations to the public and make them more accountable to taxpayers. Many Canadians are demanding these changes and I am hopeful the House will recognize the will of the people and support this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[The Valour And The Horror, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the CBC documentary on the bombing of Germany during World War II entitled "The Valour and the Horror" is an unbalanced portrayal of Canadian servicemen.

Thousands of Canadian airmen gave their lives during this war and I know from personal experience the sacrifices they and their families made. My father, who was a navigator in the RCAF, gave his life overseas during this war.

The Senate committee found serious inaccuracies in this docudrama and strongly recommended that CBC fulfil its promise to the Canadian public not to rebroadcast "The Valour and the Horror" in its original form, yet CBC has refused to listen.

I am personally outraged that CBC, funded by taxpayers, intends to rebroadcast this production which completely distorts history and casts a dark shadow on our brave airmen.